jgoodguy

The politics of Roman Jerusalem would compromise the temple. OTOH That leaves the problem of why the pseudo history has Jerusalem origins of the movement in it. The storyline developed elsewhere, but why set the story in Jerusalem?

aa5874

Now, what credible source of antiquity support your "Shauline" story?

There is ABSOLUTELY no obligation to speculate about "Paul".

It is the "Pauline" writings and Acts of the Apostles that are SOURCES for "Paul" in the NT Canon.

The Pauline story in ACTS is EXTREMELY easy to understand. It is NOT necessary to ALTER, ADD, REMOVE or TAMPER with the story.

In ACTS, Saul/Paul, a persecutor of Jesus Believers, was BLINDED by a bright light and heard the voice of Jesus and had an argument about "KICKING PRICKS".

Jesus had ALREADY Ascended to heaven when Saul/Paul and Jesus had the argument about "KICKING PRICKS".

Sometime later, after SAUL/Paul "RECEIVED" his sight, he began to preach Jesus after CONSULTATION with some disciples in Damascus.

Now, in Acts, SAUL/Paul was in a basket near a wall in Damascus and "Paul" in 2 Cor. claimed he was in a basket near a wall in Damascus.

Ac 9:25 - 2Co 11:33 - All we need to find out is if the Pauline story is historically sound or was just invented by the authors to falsely create an EARLY history of the Church.

That is ALL we NEED to investigate and there is NO need to SPECULATE and make up stories about "Paul" without credible sources.

It has ALREADY been deduced by Scholars that all the Canonical Gospels WERE most likely written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The Church claimed that at least gMatthew and gMark were written BEFORE the Fall of the Temple but Scholars have deduced that such is NOT the case.

We have a PATTERN developing. The Church is ATTEMPTING to place the writings of the Jesus stories EARLIER than they should be.

We ALREADY know that Scholars have deduced that some of the Pauline writings are LATER than the Fall of the Temple.

Now, if 'Paul' was BEFORE the Gospels were WRITTEN and did PREACH his Gospel ALL OVER the Roman Empire then we would EXPECT that the Gospel Jesus would EMULATE the Pauline Jesus.

No such thing happened. There is no evidence any author of the Gospel knew or had heard that OVER 500 people AT ONCE saw the resurrected Jesus.

It must be SPECIFICALLY noted that Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and RAISED on the third day.

This TEACHING of the Resurrection is EXTREMELY important. The author of gMark made mention of the teaching of Jesus.

Mr 9:31 - Now, if Jesus was ALREADY raised from the dead since around 33 CE and OVER 500 people AT ONCE saw the resurrected Jesus LONG before the authors of Gospels wrote their stories then it would have been EXPECTED that the such a SIGNIFICANT piece of evidence would have been used by the ALL the NT authors.

Not one author of the NT outside of "Paul" made mention that OVER 500 people AT ONCE saw the resurrected Jesus.

"Paul" even claimed some of the 500 people were still ALIVE when he wrote.

So, whether or not "Paul" wrote any epistles, it should have been KNOWN by Jesus believers throughout the Roman Empire OVER 500 people AT ONCE saw Jesus.

1 Cor.15
The MOST SIGNIFICANT evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in the Pauline writings is UNKNOWN to the Gospel authors.

"Paul" was a fraud. His story about the 500 people who saw the resurrected Jesus was invented AFTER the Canonical Gospels were ALREADY written. Not even the author of gLuke, a supposed CLOSE companion of "Paul", mentioned that OVER 500 people AT ONCE saw the resurrected Jesus.

There is NO need to ALTER, CHANGE, ADD, REMOVE or Speculate about "Paul" when the evidence from antiquity SHOW that he was a FRAUD.

We should LEAVE the stories about "Paul" just as we found them as archaeologists would.

The Pauline story JUST DON'T ADD up historically.

maryhelena

Where else?? Pseudo-history, in the Jewish context, is an interpretation of history, 'salvation' history. Destruction, restoration - prophetic ideas, messianic ideas. A Jewish 'morality play', could not be set anywhere else. The horse might have bolted, the spirit departed - but the stable, the temple, was still there, albeit compromised....Just perfect for a pseudo-history....

blastula

I have a problem with portraying Eusebius's wrirtings as conclusive evidence for anything that first or second century people did, wrote or believed.


Your appeal to "scholars" here is inconsistent with your frequent dismissal of scholars elsewhere, such as...

Not if you go by the majority of scholars.

It's probably safest to say the Pauline writer was aware of traditions about Jesus, but not so probable to say he was aware of any particular gospel (except perhaps the pseudepigrapha writers).

jgoodguy

Jerusalem had a 'history' so a pseudo history would have the credibility of a real place, with a real history for the scene to stage the 'morality play'. I've ordered James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (or via: amazon.co.uk)
by Robert H. Eisenman which may be interesting. It is a bit dated, but it may have some interesting ideas if the comments are accurate.

aa5874

I have a problem with people who constantly refuse to admit that I did not ever claim to use Eusebius alone to DEVELOP my theory that the Pauline writings were ALL late or AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

It is completely unreasonable to suggest that I must dismiss all scholars. I am not here to join a cult. You seem not to be engaged in a rational discussion but are making meaningless accusations.

Not if you go by the EVIDENCE from antiquity given by Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Aristides, Arnobius and Eusebius.

Not if you go by ALL the Canonical authors of the Jesus stories.

And NOT if you go by the Pauline writings.

Do you NOT even understand that "Paul" claim he PERSECUTED the FAITH?

A PERSECUTOR, above all persons, is EXPECTED to have INTRICATE details of those he PERSECUTES.

"Paul" must be EXPECTED to be able to IDENTIFY the Christian Faith, and Identify those who preach the Christian.

And further, "Paul" was AWARE of over 500 People who SAW the resurrected Jesus.

I deal with EVIDENCE from antiquity but it seems that you COUNT the number of people who support your position.

Counting people DON'T count. That is the first FUNDAMENTAL thing that an ATHEIST learns.

Sheshbazzar

Agreed.